6 of 9
6
nursing a baby
Posted: 03 January 2012 07:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4840
Joined  2007-10-05
upwardlook1 - 01 January 2012 03:30 PM

I must point out that there are reasons based on observations to think the earth is young.

Please, post those reasons. I’d love to see what kind of reality denying nonsense you propose to think the Earth is less than four billion years old.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 07:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2007-08-24

It does not take a degree in science to understand why babies nurse.  When I was first pregnant I went to the library to learn about how my body would react to a baby growing in my womb.  I doubled my nutrients and consumed all the good stuff that would help me produce a healthy baby.  I learned that my breasts would produce a liquid that would enter the newborn and protect him/her from disease of the world we lived in.  Three days later milk would be available from the same source. 

I had also attended the birth of kittens, puppies and horses.  Some of these critters had a problem making enough milk and I supplemented many of them with goats milk from a vet.  When my own babies need more nourishment, I used my blender and added all kinds of good things from nature.  I had done the same for the animals as we are all mammals. 

During the birth itself the body is flooded with hormones that protect the babies from a source the body understands.  I learned all this from a book in 1955.  I experienced what I learned and my babies, puppies, kittens and foals all survived.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 10:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
macgyver - 03 January 2012 05:31 AM
upwardlook1 - 02 January 2012 09:49 PM

W4U,
Yeah, yeah, I was taught that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” as stated by Haeckel. It was called Haeckel’s Law. Then it was made known to me that the idea was discredited years ago and no informed evolutionist uses this as evidence. The slits you mentioned are pharyngeal (throat) arches. They become jaw bones, the hyoid bone, and other neck structures. These parts are not related to breathing.

While science has certainly progressed,but there are gaps that need to be filled. For example, there is no naturalistic explanation for the following: (1) where everything came from; (2) the emergence of life; (3) the origin of consciousness; (4) the origin of morality (just to name a few). There are certainly speculations about these, but no convincing answers.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from but this is not true. The “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” concept wasn’t never meant to imply that fetal development is an exact reenactment of evolution. The idea is that you can see how some structures have evolved from one use in more primitive organisms to a different use in the modern organism.  In fact the “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” idea illustrates something i tried to explain to you earlier.. that organisms evolve by using old structures for new purposes.

The gills you refer to do exist as gills in the fetus and the structures are identical to the gill structures in fish embryos. What happens in mammals is that these very obvious gills change over the course of fetal development into the ossicles of the inner ear among other things. If you think about it, why in the world would an “intelligent designer” first construct gill components and then reshape them during fetal development to make something completely different. Its as though every land vertebrate ever conceived is an example of the “creator” taking out his eraser and saying “oops, thats not what i meant to make” and then redoing it over and over again. While we’re on the subject, how does the human tail fit into your explanation ( or lack of explanation i should say) of these phenomena. Human fetuses have a tail which usually disappears early on. It looks like God not only makes mistakes but he doesn’t even learn from his own mistakes. I hope you bought him a bucket full of erasers for Christmas.

Human fetuses also grow a coat of fur and then shed it before they are born. A holdover from our ape ancestry, or God being intentionally misleading?

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4840
Joined  2007-10-05
domokato - 03 January 2012 10:38 AM

Human fetuses also grow a coat of fur and then shed it before they are born. A holdover from our ape ancestry, or God being intentionally misleading?

Obviously it was God being intentionally misleading. He really confused the Sumerians when He created the Heavens and Earth. Adding further confusion; the light between the galaxies, dinosaur fossils, and written history going back farther than Biblical Lineage. There is also that old Talking Snake/Angry Giant myth where God created Adam and Eve with no knowledge of right and wrong, then punished them for making the wrong decision.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
domokato - 03 January 2012 10:38 AM

Human fetuses also grow a coat of fur and then shed it before they are born. A holdover from our ape ancestry, or God being intentionally misleading?

Probably the work of the devil. Your ignorance in theology is unbearable, domokato.  grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 12:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

I considered that, but then I thought, since when did the devil have control over creation??

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 12:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
domokato - 03 January 2012 12:15 PM

I considered that, but then I thought, since when did the devil have control over creation??

You are not supposed to think that much. As I already said, you really suck at theology.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 12:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

confused
LOL

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 01:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  17
Joined  2011-12-28

Of course you threaten to ban me. I expected to be banned.  It happens all the time in schools and colleges. If an instructor says something as simple as there is a separate ancestry for humans and apes, or changes of the originally created kinds of animals occur only within fixed limits he/she will lose research funding or be fired. This shows complete intolerance for diversity. So go ahead and show your lack of tolerance for freethinking.
Related to trollin’- I think we are all guilty of being pricks on the internet simply because we can be. You look back and notice that others started it before I did. Are you going to ban them?

 Signature 

What I’m asking for is the freedom to follow
the evidence wherever it leads. ~ Richard Sternberg

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
upwardlook1 - 03 January 2012 01:41 PM

I expected to be banned.

Maybe it’s time for the last supper and getting all mushy in the olive garden.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 02:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2210
Joined  2007-04-26
upwardlook1 - 03 January 2012 01:41 PM

Of course you threaten to ban me. I expected to be banned.  It happens all the time in schools and colleges. If an instructor says something as simple as there is a separate ancestry for humans and apes, or changes of the originally created kinds of animals occur only within fixed limits he/she will lose research funding or be fired. This shows complete intolerance for diversity. So go ahead and show your lack of tolerance for freethinking.
Related to trollin’- I think we are all guilty of being pricks on the internet simply because we can be. You look back and notice that others started it before I did. Are you going to ban them?

The difference is that we are all making a valiant attempt to have an intelligent discussion with you. We give direct responses to your criticisms and arguments and provide arguments to the contrary. You on the other hand make no attempt to respond to our points with any sort of logical argument. You ignore our posts and just make additional unfounded claims.

Rudeness is always an issue when people have heated debates but its not the reason you are being threatened with banishment, nor is it because you disagree with the prevailing views on this board. You are being threatened with banishment because you refuse to actually engage in a discussion. There are precious few examples in this thread of you actually responding to anyone’s posts. You put your fingers in your ears and just keep throwing out tired old arguments that you’ve heard from the ID crowd.

If the people on this board were truly intolerant we would have stopped responding to you a long time ago. There has been an intelligent response to every post you have made. Sometimes many good responses. Can you say the same about your contributions to this discussion? We all feel like we’re talking to a wall or a tape recording of old ideas.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 02:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6095
Joined  2009-02-26
upwardlook1 - 03 January 2012 01:41 PM

Of course you threaten to ban me. I expected to be banned.  It happens all the time in schools and colleges. If an instructor says something as simple as there is a separate ancestry for humans and apes, or changes of the originally created kinds of animals occur only within fixed limits he/she will lose research funding or be fired. This shows complete intolerance for diversity. So go ahead and show your lack of tolerance for freethinking.
Related to trollin’- I think we are all guilty of being pricks on the internet simply because we can be. You look back and notice that others started it before I did. Are you going to ban them?

I am patiently waiting for your arguments in favor of creation.  So far you have not made a single argument that can be analyzed.

The only thing I know about your knowledge is that certain things “were made known to you”. Would you care to explain the source of this knowledge so that I can study it myself. I’ll save you the time to explain it all.  You see I am here to learn, and to share what I have learned.
You are the one being rude, you are not sharing, but just denying everything that has been said, without counter factuals which are verifiable.

Freethought:
Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas.[1] The cognitive application of freethought is known as “freethinking,” and practitioners of freethought are known as “freethinkers”

Not to be confused with your right to freedom of thought, which religion forbids. Perhaps we should start with that simple term.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 03:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14
upwardlook1 - 03 January 2012 01:41 PM

It happens all the time in schools and colleges. If an instructor says something as simple as there is a separate ancestry for humans and apes, or changes of the originally created kinds of animals occur only within fixed limits he/she will lose research funding or be fired. This shows complete intolerance for diversity.

Would you care to provide us with well documented examples? If it happens “all the time” it should be child’s play for you to come up with scores of them.

That said, schools and colleges have the mandate to teach competently. If a math teacher decided that 1 + 1 = 3, he would not survive long in the position. If a history teacher taught in class that Andrew Jackson was the first president of the United States, or that Louisiana was settled by space aliens, he would likely be fired. As would a physics or astronomy teacher who taught astrology.

Teaching young earth creationism violates scientific theories in astronomy, geology and biology. It would be scientifically illiterate to teach it in school, just as it would be medically negligent to teach bloodletting as a universal cure in medical school.

upwardlook1 - 03 January 2012 01:41 PM

So go ahead and show your lack of tolerance for freethinking.

So long as you’re willing to argue rather than troll, you’re welcome to stay.

... that said, I doubt you are as great a believer in “freethinking” as you claim. After all, freethinking, and the skeptical search for data and evidence it fosters, is the enemy of the blind, faith-based dogma you’re peddling here.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 03:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6095
Joined  2009-02-26

SANDY,

IF YOU ARE RUNNING A PC (AS I AM)

GO TO “CONTROL PANEL”, THEN “DISPLAY”.

THERE YOU WILL FIND OPTIONS FOR ENLARGING THE DISPLAYED MATERIALS.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

AN INSTANT OPTION IS TO “QUOTE” A POST. HIGHLIGHT THE ENTIRE POST AND USE “LARGE” SCRIPT. THEN USE “PREVIEW’ TO READ THE POST.
AFTER READING YOU CAN THEN EDIT OUT THE QUOTE AND JUST POST YOU RESPONSE NORMALLY.

ANOTHER OPTION, AS OCCAM RECOMMENDS, IS TO COPY AND PASTE THE POST INTO YOUR “WORDPAD”, WHICH YOU CAN THEN MANIPULATE ANY WAY YOU WANT, BEFORE RESPONDING TO THE POST. THEN SIMPLY COPY AND PASTE THE COMPLETED PAGE FROM THE WORDPAD BACK INTO A CFI REPLY PAGE.

[ Edited: 03 January 2012 03:35 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2012 03:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

Or you could just hold ctrl and press = or + to enlarge text in your browser. Works in most browsers, I think.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 9
6